[release-24.05] Mass pings be gone #348642
Open
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This allows shell.nix to be run with the latest tools instead of the pinned ones when desired, which is probably not very often, but useful nonetheless. (cherry picked from commit b07c441)
Allows reusing it in more places (cherry picked from commit 1700d00)
Also post a comment in case base branch is wrong This guides newcomers in how to smoothly handle the potentially scary situation of having thousands of commits listed in a PR. While CI shows the same, people might not even look at CI if the PR looks botched. (cherry picked from commit 369cfa0)
(cherry picked from commit 5695bf6)
(cherry picked from commit 87a2986)
(cherry picked from commit 93dcd42)
Since NixOS#336261 we have CI that checks that the codeowners file is valid: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/actions/runs/11243668280/job/31260095472#step:7:34 Which files are correct (or whether they were removed) was determined using the Git history and some grepping (cherry picked from commit dd28082)
Apparently it started requesting reviews from code owners already because the DRY_MODE from the global env was overridden in the local job declaration: NixOS#347354 (comment) (cherry picked from commit c1710f2)
The automation should never rerequest reviews from users that already reviewed the changes, which is what was happening before this change: NixOS#347354 (comment) Also reorder the arguments to make more sense (cherry picked from commit 9a054bb)
This makes this codeowner mechanism behave differently than the native one, but there's no other way to avoid rerequesting reviews from teams when a member already reviewed the PR. (cherry picked from commit 1ff83b2)
This effectively disables the native GitHub codeowners feature and enables the new alternate codeowners mechanism introduced in NixOS#336261 This means that: - We can now declare users without write access as code owners! - Targeting the wrong branch won't trigger mass pings anymore! (cherry-picked from commit b01ca00)
This is not a problem anymore with the parent commit (cherry picked from commit c246403)
…arent Also, fix the description of the text (cherry picked from commit c721e91)
(cherry picked from commit ddeb2df)
The codeowner-validator build declared in ci/codeowners-validator was not cached before and needed to be built for every PR, which is slow and wasteful: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/actions/runs/11280533037/job/31373720922 (cherry picked from commit f9b28d5)
Turns out if :<something> is passed, a local branch is updated, which can conflict if the PR branch starts with "pr". I tried to avoid that with the original code but apparently that didn't work! https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/actions/runs/11284183639/job/31384967152?pr=347822 Fetching the PR commit history From https://github.com/linj-fork/nixpkgs * [new branch] pr/kanata-add-version-check -> fork/pr error: cannot lock ref 'refs/remotes/fork/pr/kanata-add-version-check': 'refs/remotes/fork/pr' exists; cannot create 'refs/remotes/fork/pr/kanata-add-version-check' ! [new branch] pr/kanata-add-version-check -> fork/pr/kanata-add-version-check (unable to update local ref) error: some local refs could not be updated; try running (cherry picked from commit 299a181)
Previously, headRef points to the master branch of Nixpkgs, which
basically means no code owner review will be requested.
The problem can be verified using the following command.
$ DRY_MODE=1 ./ci/request-reviews/request-reviews.sh NixOS/nixpkgs 347973 ci/OWNERS
[...]
This PR touches 0 files
Requesting reviews from: {
"reviewers": []
}
[...]
Additionally, the comment about conflicts is removed thanks to the
unambiguous way of specifying ref.
(cherry picked from commit f4c6e11)
It's possible to have different casings in OWNERS, so we need to handle that (cherry picked from commit e612b89)
|
Cherry-pick check can be ignored because it pretty much just fails because b01ca00 had to be manually backported, since it moves the CODEOWNERS file, which differs between master and release-24.05 |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is a backport of the following PRs:
--arg nixpkgs ./.#330823 (makes the next PR easier)This ensures that we also don't get mass pings when
release-24.05was chosen for a PR that should go to master, like #348605.Ping @emilazy @philiptaron
Things done
Add a 👍 reaction to pull requests you find important.